Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Well ain't that awkward. I hope there won't be any misunderstanding if Eid does fall on 9/11 and politicians on both sides are ready to defend their Muslims citizens should some idiot think it's a celebration of terror when it's not.

It is a point of frustration to Democrats that much of the public seems unimpressed by the litany of legislation signed into law in the first two years of President Obama’s term: the $787 billion stimulus package, an anti-age-discrimination law, long-sought tobacco regulation, expanded community service, credit card consumer protection, the landmark health care law, Pentagon contracting changes, Wall Street regulation, tax cuts, credits and more.

Yes. Using the -11 calculation from Lunar to Gregorian, the same date on the lunar calendar will fall 11 days earlier in the following year on the Gregorian. Meaning 17/12/2009 will be 06/12/2010 on the Gregorian.

Ramadan ended on the 21/09/2009 last year, so it is 10/09/2010 this year (Hari Raya Puasa as it is known over here amongst the SEA Islamists). Official celebratory date is +1, so ironically, it falls on 9/11/2010.

And I don't think they have anything to complain about. Within 3 years on its 12th anniversary, the date is going to clash with Nagasaki's bombing and Singapore's National Day. Take that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

With Palin and GB around... get ready.

They don't have to worry though. The souls of the suicide bombers and dead terrorists are sealed back into hell 3 days earlier* on the 08/09/10**.

Whatever follows suit** will be solely based on their individual intellect.

* - End of Hungry Ghosts Festival on the Lunar Calendar.

** - Numerical sequence and word pun is coincidential and unintended.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Lee proposes three-step reunification with N. Korea
By Lee Chi-dong
SEOUL, Aug. 15 (Yonhap) -- South Korean President Lee Myung-bak on Sunday proposed a three-stage reunification with North Korea and the introduction of a "unification tax" to prepare for the huge financial burden expected if the two Koreas are reunited.

"Today inter-Korean relations demand a new paradigm," Lee said in his speech to mark the 65th anniversary of Korea's independence from Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule.
"It is imperative that the two sides choose coexistence instead of confrontation, progress instead of stagnation. The two of us need to overcome the current state of division and proceed with the goal of peaceful reunification."
Toward that goal, the two Koreas first should form a "peace community" that assures security and harmony on the peninsula, Lee said, adding that denuclearization of the communist neighbor is of the utmost importance.

"The next step is to carry out comprehensive inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation with a view to developing the North's economy dramatically. The result will be an economic community in which the two will work for economic integration," he said.

After this, the two Koreas can remove the wall of different systems and establish a genuine community, where freedom and basic rights of all Koreans are guaranteed, Lee pointed out.

Not going to happen unless Kim Jong Il's successor turns out to be a major reformer. Even then, it likely won't happen for several generations. By then, is there even going to be anyone who still wants reunification?

That's the most simplistic and naive plan I've ever heard. And I doubt this unification tax is going to be anywhere what would be needed to pay for unification.

Though the biggest obstacle is that the North Korean ruling elite is simply never going to allow the development of free communication, plus close and open economic ties with the South. They do that and it immediately becomes obvious that the Northern government can't provide anything for them. Forget the issues of integrating these radically different types of government. The North Korean system might not be able to keep itself intact for integration to happen.

It's the same reason Stalin didn't let the Americans extend the Marshall plan to eastern Europe. After a long period of hardship, the loyalty of people and nations can be as simple as whose personally handing food to them.

as of now, the South Koreans at least are still very interested in peace and unification (I took a trip to the DMZ, and the major theme of the day was reunification). Families were broken up, and the South Koreans feel for their brethren under hardship. Even for the North Koreans, brain washing can only go so far before they question if life isn't better on the outside.

Families being separated is a strong motivator. But is that really going to last much longer? People who were younger teenagers during the Korean war broke out are now well into their 70's. By the time this decade is out most of them are going to be dead. And does anybody here really think that in a decade the relationships between the North and the South will be any less inherently confrontational?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mindovermatter

Even for the North Koreans, brain washing can only go so far before they question if life isn't better on the outside.

And do you think the North Korean military and leadership isn't aware of this? They're very much aware of how they certainly can't truthfully justify their rule of the Northern half of the peninsula based on how well they've been taking care of their people. Why do you think the North is so secluded and isolationist? It knows that if their people could blatantly see the difference between how they and their neighbors lived their regime couldn't survive.

This is why it's inherently silly for people to try to convince the North to open free communications and trade. These things may be good for North Korea in the long term, but they do absolutely no good for the North Korean regime.

Families being separated is a strong motivator. But is that really going to last much longer? People who were younger teenagers during the Korean war broke out are now well into their 70's. By the time this decade is out most of them are going to be dead. And does anybody here really think that in a decade the relationships between the North and the South will be any less inherently confrontational?

and when you explain the actual cost of unification, how many of the younger gen is willing to pay it?

and when you explain the actual cost of unification. how many of the younger gen is willing to pay it.

This. This is why it seems inherently preposterous for the President to talk about a unification tax. Any realistic amount of money the government plans to collect probably won't be viewed as acceptable by the South Korean voting population.

Another thing that has to be seriously considered is how unification would affect the Korean health care system. The North Korean population has been beset for an extended period of time by starvation and completely inadaquete medical care. What you bassically have is a sudden influx of people into the system who are going to be far more expensive to treat, and won't have any economic basis from which to help prop up the system.

It's easy to talk about unification when you don't actually have to sit down and address how you're really going to do it.

..The insight that transforms a craft into an art — (that) is what Miyazaki believes to be lost in modern Japan, a society agog with gadgets and conveniences galore.

To him, these conveniences have caused people to take too many things for granted, especially the environment. Everything comes so easily that we no longer care about building for the long term and conserving for the future. This, I believe, is why Miyazaki is so angry with technology. He's not anti-technology per se. Rather, he's angry at the wasteful, destructive culture that arises from the careless use of technology.

I think Miyazaki's view can apply to anything in life. Take the BP oil spill. BP cut corners when they built a deep water rig and look at the oil spill we have now. If BP didn't cut corners and made sure that the rig is safe, we wouldn't have the oil spill we have now. If these energy companies push for alternative energy or put more effort in safety. In contrast to Miyazaki anger with technology, people are now taking notice and angry at the use of oil. So yeah, the analogy can practically apply to anything in life, not just tech and Anime.

MR TODD Braver emerges from a tent nestled against the canyon wall. He has a slight tan, except for a slim, pale band around his wrist.

For the first time in three days in the wilderness, Mr Braver is not wearing his watch. "I forgot," he says.

It is a small thing, the kind of change many vacationers notice in themselves as they unwind and lose track of time. But for Mr Braver and his companions, these moments lead to a question: What is happening to our brains?

Mr Braver, a psychology professor at Washington University in St Louis, was one of five neuroscientists on an unusual journey. They spent a week in late May in this remote area of southern Utah, rafting the San Juan River, camping on the soft banks and hiking the tributary canyons.

It was a primitive trip with a sophisticated goal: To understand how heavy use of digital devices and other technology changes how we think and behave, and how a retreat into nature might reverse those effects.

As they head down the tight curves the San Juan has carved from ancient sandstone, the travellers will, not surprisingly, unwind, sleep better and lose the nagging feeling to check for a phone in the pocket. But the significance of such changes is a matter of debate for them.

Gadgets: Boon or bane?
The trip's organiser, Mr David Strayer, 52, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, says that studying what happens when we step away from our devices and rest our brains — in particular, how attention, memory and learning are affected — is important science.

"Attention is the holy grail," he says. "Everything that you're conscious of, everything you let in, everything you remember and you forget, depends on it." He adds that, on a day-to-day basis, too much digital stimulation can "take people who would be functioning OK and put them in a range where they're not psychologically healthy".

The quest to understand the impact on the brain of heavy technology use — at a time when such use is exploding — is still in its early stages. To Mr Strayer, it is no less significant than when scientists investigated the effects of consuming too much meat or alcohol.

The five scientists on the trip can be loosely divided into two groups: the believers and the sceptics.

The believers are Mr Strayer and Mr Paul Atchley, 40, a professor at the University of Kansas who studies teenagers' compulsive use of cellphones. They argue that heavy technology use can inhibit deep thought and cause anxiety, and that getting out into nature can help. They take pains in their own lives to regularly log off.

The sceptics use their digital gadgets without reservation. They are not convinced that anything lasting will come of the trip — personally or scientifically.

This group includes the fast-talking Mr Braver, 41, a brain-imaging expert; Mr Steven Yantis, 54, the tall and contemplative chairman of the psychological and brain sciences department at Johns Hopkins, who studies how people switch between tasks; and Mr Art Kramer, 57, a white-bearded professor at the University of Illinois who has gained attention for his studies of the neurological benefits of exercise.

An interesting story about the effects of technology on our mental processes and, by extrapolation, on our societies.

Deeper into the piece, the scientists refer to a "seminal study from the University of Michigan that showed people can better learn after walking in the woods than after walking a busy street".

Quote:

The study indicates that learning centres in the brain become taxed when asked to process information, even during the relatively passive experience of taking in an urban setting. By extension, some scientists believe heavy multitasking fatigues the brain, draining it of the ability to focus.

Mr Strayer argues that nature can refresh the brain. "Our senses change. They kind of recalibrate — you notice sounds, like these crickets chirping; you hear the river, the sounds, the smells, you become more connected to the physical environment, the earth, rather than the artificial environment."

Mr Braver accepts the Michigan research but wants to understand precisely what happens inside the brain. And he wonders: Why don't brains adapt to the heavy stimulation, turning us into ever-stronger multitaskers?

"Right," says Mr Kramer, the sceptic. "Why wouldn't the circuits be exercised, in a sense, and we'd get stronger?"

The portions I highlighted, I believe, will find particular resonance with director Hayao Miyazaki.

Those scientists are just reiterating what is being said by Freudian age psychoanalysts : the human brain is adaptable.

What really rouse suspicions is the "walk in the woods" learning - it is so gimmicky like many of those advertised in travel commercials. In fact, the human brain learn faster when there are less thought processes running : it would take equally as long for a human being to learn a rain dance in the woods compared to breakdancing in a quiet danceroom.

Outdoors don't enhance learning speed and capability - it is how fast the human brain can adapt to the neuron switch and out of preprogrammed habits. Otherwise the SAS wouldn't have a 85% dropout rate during the jungle phase.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

On the Eid question, there is possibility that it will fall on 9/10, which I personally am hoping for because I'd like to avoid misunderstandings, and something like this to the uninformed would seem very much out-of-taste and possibly result in violence. I'd like to avoid that. Of course, Eid al-Fitr is a three-day holiday, so there will still be celebrations on 9/11, it's just a question on if the first day will fall on it.

Now you also need to consider the first day of prayers. It varies depending on which religious leader you follow. For example, most Saudis started ramadan a day before Iraqis. So, assuming that the first day of Ramadan was last Thursday (which it was for me), then the first day of Eid is either 9/10 or 9/11.

They both have huge audiences in Middle America, making this week’s public quarrel between Bill O’Reilly and Jennifer Aniston one of the more widely-watched — and to some, perhaps, puzzling — celebrity feuds in recent months.

O’Reilly is known for his politically conservative fan base on “The O’Reilly Factor” and he enjoys a large following on Fox News with his commentary, so fans can expect him to mouth off. But Aniston is a tabloid favorite in large part because of her girl-next-door image, and she is rarely outspoken on anything much at all. So, it’s surprising when she fights speech with speech.

Aniston was targeted by O’Reilly on his “Culture Warriors” segment on Fox News this week after her recent comment that “women are realizing, more and more knowing, they don’t have to settle with a man just to have a child.” She made that statement when promoting her new movie “The Switch” about a similar topic.Bill O'Reilly

O’Reilly and his fellow Fox commentators then got personal with her, pointing out she is 41 and unmarried and likely looking to still have a child — hence her comment. The 60-year-old, self-styled “traditionalist” and syndicated columnist said her statement surely was “throwing a message out to 12 year-olds and 13 year-olds that hey, you don’t need a guy, you don’t need a dad.” And finally, he said, “that’s destructive to our society.”

(We note: O’Reilly began his comments by cementing his place as a pop culture aficionado and Aniston specialist by asking, “Didn’t she marry Brad Pitt?”)

And though she may have seemed ill-equipped to take him on, Aniston had the last parting shot, telling People magazine by the end of week: ”Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age” before adding tongue-in-cheek, “but for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m just glad science has provided a few other options.” Snap!

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Insanity sells... it promotes fear and anxiety so you'll hang on through the next commercial break. The "news media" and "reality tv" in the US would be delivering snuff film if they thought they could get away with it.